Tuesday, August 16, 2016

American Hispanics and Blacks (called Non Hispanic* Black--NHB) lose more of their population to abortion than to other cause. In a study recently published on causes of death in 2009, abortion counted for 16.4% of deaths among Whites (called Non Hispanic* Whites--NHW), The percentage was quadrupled for Blacks and Hispanics. Of deaths among Blacks, 61.1% were due to abortion; for Hispanics 64% of their deaths were due to abortion.

In the U.S. in 2009, there were 6,369,000 pregnancies among women of all racial and ethnic origins. Hispanics, NHB and NHW together accounted for 93.2% of all pregnancies. Abortions terminated 11.9% of NHW pregnancies, 17.1% of Hispanic pregnancies, and 35.5% of NHB pregnancies. The ratio of live births to a single abortion for each group was: 5.8 for NHW; 3.9 for Hispanics; and 1.4 for NHB.

For all racial and ethnic origins, there were 3,589,163 deaths (Figure 1). Abortions accounted for only 16.4% of NHW deaths, but 61.1% and 64.0% of NHB and Hispanic deaths respectively. For NHW, diseases of the heart (20.8%) and malignant neoplasms (19.6%) each account for a higher percentage of deaths than do abortions. For Hispanics and NH Blacks, deaths from abortions are 4.2 and 3.5 times, respectively, the number of deaths from diseases of the heart and malignant neoplasms combined. Homicide was ranked in the top ten causes of death for Hispanics and NHB, but abortion deaths were 79.3 and 57.5 times, respectively, the number of homicides. Suicide was ranked in the top ten causes for NHW, but abortion deaths were 12.4 times the number of suicides.

The authors of the study note that though abortion is the leading cause of death for Hispanics and Blacks there is neither "availability of
consistently reported valid data" nor "allocation of sufficient resources for research" to track this information. They conclude that this is an example of science denial of the impact of abortions on deaths.

The exclusion of abortion as a cause of death, in spite of conclusive science to contrary, and the relative paucity of information and funded research on a topic of demonstrated consequence to the demographic composition of the society, may be the ultimate example of science denial. An abortion death is deemed necessary and performed by other humans in a purposeful and completely legal process. In these respects an abortion is similar to capital punishment and subject to the same clash of varying religious, political and ideological values. The appropriate role of science is to inform this societal dialogue with objective information. Labeling abortion as a preventable death is not an argument for restricting access to a legal abortion. However, refusing to acknowledge abortion as a death undermines the role of science and the value of transparency so fundamental to a free society.

_____

*Interesting that scientific measurements are done in terms of being Hispanic or not.

Thursday, August 04, 2016

Trump being elected will not result in conservative Supreme Court justices.

Point 1: Supreme Court nominees have to be confirmed by a majority vote of the U.S. Senate. (Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution) But, under current Senate rules, Supreme Court nominations can be stopped by a filibuster supported by 41 senators.

Point 2: Republicans currently hold a majority of 54 senate seats. Democrats have 44, and there are 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Point 3: Republicans have to defend 24 senate seats; Democrats only 10. Of 10 senate seats in danger of flipping, 8 are Republican. Chances of getting to 60 to prevent a filibuster are infinitesimal.

Point 4: Trump doesn't much care if Republican senators get elected. Neither Trump nor Pence are backing John McCain of Arizona or Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire (in their primaries), and Trump has been critical of both. Further, Trump isn't campaigning or raising funds for Republican senatorial candidates.

Point 6: Trump has flipped on so manyissues, the odds of staying with his conservative justices promise are low.

Even if he wins the presidency and keeps that one promise, there's no way Democrats will confirm any conservative court nominee. The Democrats have shown they know how to play political hard ball both with a majority (Obamacare) and a minority (budget votes they don't approve of). And they will have the mainstream media backing them almost unopposed since Fox has damaged itself in the eyes of many conservatives and Republicans with its pro-Trump rationalizations.

The best hope is that Trump will be able to confirm "centrist" (read: liberal light) justices. Hillary will also have the same chance because Democrats will not have 60 votes to prevent a filibuster in the Senate. But, since Republicans don't vote their conscience but vote for political utility she will probably be able to get liberal moderates through.

So, your choice will be liberal light at best and probably liberal moderate. Is it worth the shame and danger of backing a vile, unstable candidate like Donald Trump?

Note: Post has been updated to reflect filibuster numbers. Two-thirds vote of Senate is only required on treaties.